대여금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, except for the use of the part of the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s counterclaim of set-off as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part to be mard;
A. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant’s offset D&C association paid KRW 1.1 billion at the service cost to C, and C paid KRW 580,880,000 to the Plaintiff on the same day.
① Although the Defendant received KRW 17.2% out of the above KRW 1.1 billion, the Plaintiff was divided into C and the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff made unjust enrichment against the Defendant at least KRW 12,298,000 (=10 million x KRW 47.2% of the Plaintiff’s shares x 47.2% of the Plaintiff’s shares ± (30%) 115,676,683 of the calculation, and based on the amount of the Defendant’s claim).
② The Defendant paid KRW 20 million out of the above KRW 1.1 billion to KRW 17.2% of the above KRW 1.1 billion (5.6% of other expenses - KRW 550 million of the above 1.1 billion, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 50 million of KRW 50 million of the above KRW 1.1 billion (2% of the Plaintiff’s shares 47.2% of other expenses - KRW 550 million of the above - KRW 50 million of the above 1.1 billion, and thus, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 30.8 billion of the difference (= KRW 580 million of the difference - KRW 550 million).
Since the Plaintiff is obligated to return the above unjust enrichment to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the above unjust enrichment is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the investment amount in this case.
B. As seen earlier, C entered into a contract for the entrustment of all affairs, such as authorization and permission, and the relevant administrative agency services with the DDD redevelopment project association as to whether the Plaintiff was unjustly unjust enrichment as seen above. The Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant entered into the said joint investment agreement for the DD venture project association: Defendant and other expenses = 47.